Wednesday, October 26, 2011

An Evaluation of the Rules Governing Discretionary and Mandatory Bail in Uganda

UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, MUKONO
SCHOOL OF LAW

A PAPER PRESENTED AS WRITTEN COURSE WORK IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT LEADING TO THE AWARD OF A BACHELOR OF LAWS (LLB) DEGREE OF UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, MUKONO.


BY SILVER M KAYONDO
SO9B11/316

LECTURER: ANNETTE KARUNGI MUTABINGWA (MRS)

TUTOR: HIS WORSHIP SAMUEL MUNOBE

COURSE UNIT: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Question: “An accused person is presumed innocent until he/she pleads guilty or he/she has been proved guilty. As such, an accused right has an automatic right to bail under article 23(6) of the 1995 Constitution.” Per LLB student. Discuss the truth or otherwise of the above statement citing the relevant provisions and decided cases.






Introduction:
This paper seeks to discuss the Law relating to discretionary and mandatory bail as provided for under article 23(6) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 (as amended) and other relevant statutes. Relevant case law as obtained from our jurisdiction will also be cited to support the arguments raised during the discussion.
Bail is an agreement or recognizance between the accused (and his/her sureties, if any) and the court that the accused will pay a certain sum of money fixed by the court should he fail to appear to attend his trial on a certain date. In Uganda vs. Lawrence Luzinda , Okello J (as he was then) had this to say;
“Bail is an agreement between the court and an applicant consisting of a bond with or without a surety for a reasonable amount as the circumstances of the case permit conditioned upon the applicant appearing before such a court on a date and time as named in the bond to start his trial.”
Originally, bail meant security given to court by another person that the accused will attend his/her trial on the day appointed. But now, it includes recognizance entered into by the accused himself conditioning him/her to appear, and failure of which may result in the forfeiture of the recognizance.
Bail represents a compromise between conflicting interests. The accused is given his/her freedom on conditions designed to ensure his attendance at court when required. Object of bail is to ensure that an accused person appears to stand trial without the necessity of him/her being detained in custody in the meantime. Therefore, the effect of bail is not to set the accused free but to release him from custody.
In Uganda today, Bail is created and governed by statute. I will hereunder reproduce the relevant article of the Constitution in ex tenso.
Article 23 (6) Provides that where a person is arrested in respect of a criminal offence—
(a) The person is entitled to apply to the court to be released on bail, and the court may grant that person bail on such conditions as the court considers reasonable;
(b) in the case of an offence which is triable by the High Court as well as by a subordinate court, the person shall be released on bail on such conditions as the court considers reasonable, if that person has been remanded in custody in respect of the offence for sixty days before trial, that person shall be released on bail on such conditions as the court considers reasonable.
(c) In the case of an offence triable only by the High Court, if that person has been in custody for one hundred and eighty days before the case is committed to the High Court, that person shall be released on bail on such conditions as the court considers reasonable.
Bail in the High Court is governed by the Trial on Indictment Act which spells out the following provisions;
The High Court may at any stage in the proceedings release the accused person on bail, that is to say, on taking from him or her a recognisance consisting of a bond, with or without sureties, for such an amount as is reasonable in the circumstances of the case, to appear before the court on such a date and at such a time as is named in the bond.
Notwithstanding subsection (1), in any case where a person has been released on bail, the court may, if it is of the opinion that for any reason the amount of the bail should be increased—
Issue a warrant for the arrest of the person released on bail directing that he or she should be brought before it to execute a new bond for an increased amount; and commit the person to prison if he or she fails to execute a new bond for an increased amount.
The Magistrates Courts Act provides for bail in the Magistrates Courts. It states;
A magistrate’s court before which a person appears or is brought charged with any offence other than the offences specified in subsection (2) may, at any stage in the proceedings, release the person on bail, on taking from him or her a recognisance consisting of a bond with or without sureties, for such an amount as is reasonable in the circumstances of the case to appear before the court, on such a date and at such a time as is named in the bond.
However, the Magistrates courts don’t have jurisdiction to grant bail for interalia, offences triable only by the High Court, offences under the Penal Code Act relating to acts of terrorism, offences under the Penal Code Act relating to cattle rustling, offences under the Firearms Act punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of not less than ten years, abuse of office contrary to section 87 of the Penal Code Act, rape, contrary to section 123 of the Penal Code Act and defilement contrary to sections 129 and 130 of the Penal Code Act.
Furthermore, the Magistrates Courts outlines the conditions to take into consideration before the relevant court can grant or refuse to grant bail. It provides;
Where any person appears before a magistrate’s court charged with an offence for which bail may be granted, the court shall inform the person of his or her right to apply for bail.
When an application for bail is made, the court shall have regard to the following matters in deciding whether bail should be granted or refused—
the nature of the accusation;
the gravity of the offence charged and the severity of the punishment which conviction might entail;
the antecedents of the applicant so far as they are known;
whether the applicant has a fixed abode within the area of the court’s jurisdiction; and
whether the applicant is likely to interfere with any of the witnesses for the prosecution or any of the evidence to be tendered in support of the charge.
(3) Where bail is not granted under section 75 [of the MCA], the court shall—
record the reasons why bail was not granted; and
inform the applicant of his or her right to apply for bail to the High Court or to a chief magistrate, as the circumstances may require.
The issue of bail has been discussed in Uganda in a number of decisions. For instance, in Uganda (DPP) vs. Rtd. Col Dr. Kizza Besigye . The respondent and 22 others who had been arrested and jointly charged with treason contrary to section 23 (1) (c) of the Penal Code Act . The respondent was also charged with rape contrary to section 123 of the same statute. He applied for bail to the High Court under article 23 (6) (a) of the Constitution. The DPP opposed the bail application on grounds that;
1) The court had discretion to grant or not grant the bail application pointing out that there were no exceptional circumstances in the applicant’s case as pointed out in section 15 TIA which would warrant the exercise of the court’s discretion in the appellants favour. Such exceptional circumstances include grave illness certified by a medical officer of the prison or other institution or place where the accused is detained as being incapable of adequate medical treatment while the accused is in custody, a certificate of no objection signed by the Director of Public Prosecution or the infancy or advanced age of the accused.
2) The High Court had given conflicting interpretation of article 23 (6) (a) thus leading to confusion in the lower courts which are bound by the High Court decisions. Counsel cited Layan Yahaya vs. Uganda where Justice Lugayizi held that;
“… In other words, since under article 28 (3) (a), a suspect is presumed innocent until he/she is proved guilty or until he/she pleads guilty, it makes sense to say that when such a suspect applies for bail, a court of law would act unconstitutionally if it refused to grant him/her bail. A refusal to grant bail would contradict the suspect’s inherent right innocence and directly suggest that the law presumes the suspect guilty of the offence he/she is charged with unless he/she proves otherwise. All in all, this court remains of the settled view that bail is a constitutional right that flows from the presumption of innocence…’’
Whereas it is trite that bail flows from presumption of innocence, it is not an automatic right. In Besigye’s application , the Constitutional Court of Uganda applied the literal rule interpretation to the context of article 23(6)(a) and expressed an opinion that the said provision confers discretion upon the court whether to grant bail or not. The use of the word “may” is stated to imply permissive, optional or discretional and not mandatory. It is the opposite of “shall” which is generally imperative or mandatory. The accused is entitled to apply for bail. The word “entitled” creates a right to apply for bail and not to be granted bail. However, under article 23(6)(b) and (c), the court has no discretion to grant or not to grant bail after the accused has shown that he/she has been on remand in custody for sixty or one hundred and eighty days respectively.
Indeed, courts in Uganda have excericsed this discretion pertaining to bail. For instance, in Dr. Aggrey Kiyingi vs. Uganda , the applicant was denied bail because court was of the opinion that he might flee the country if released. Justice Caroline Akello rejected the application because the applicant did not disclose that he held a Ugandan passport when he surrendered the Australian one on his arrest. In her ruling, this was intended to mislead court and it suggested that if granted bail, he may abscond. She also ruled that Dr. Kiyingi could deal with diabetes in prison and the learned judge did not consider the ground of hypertension raised by the accused because there was no evidence that he suffered from the same. However, in a fresh application, Justice Kibuuka Musoke granted him bail on condition that he deposited his passport with the Criminal Investigation Department. He also restricted him from moving beyond Kampala and Wakiso districts.
In Charles Onyango Obbo and Andrew Mwenda vs. Uganda , Justice Bossa said that in exercising its discretion, the court should not impose such tough conditions that bail looks like a punishment to the accused. The case of Sudhir Ruparelia vs. Uganda listed some of the conditions to consider before granting bail. Court has to consider whether it is probable that if the accused is released on bail, he will appear to stand trial, the nature of the offense charged, the nature of the evidence adduced and possible punishment, whether the accused has a fixed place of abode, the antecedents of the applicant and whether he/she is likely to interfere with the evidence or witnesses of the prosecution. All these were taken into account by Justice Zehurikize in Hon Godi H Akbar vs. Uganda . He granted bail to the applicant on grounds set out in the notice of motion and expounded on in the supporting affidavit. The accused had been in custody, but had not been committed for trial in the High Court, It was not known when the trial would commence, He was a member of Parliament for Arua Municipality and his constituents had continuously missed representation, he couldn’t interfere with investigations which had been completed, and he could not interfere with witnesses because he did not even know the witnesses the State intended to line up to testify against him. He also had a fixed place of abode in Kampala and Arua on top of producing four substantial sureties. Bail can also be refused where the evidence is to a greater extent pointing to the proof of guilt of the accused, however presumption of innocence must be observed. In exercising the discretion to grant or refuse to grant bail, the courts should act judiciously. There should be a balance as to the constitutional rights of the applicant, the needs of society to be protected from lawlessness and the considerations which flow from people being remanded in prison custody which adversely affects their welfare, that of their families and not least, the effect on prison remand conditions when large numbers of unconvicted people are kept in custody. It is also not a general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subjected to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and should occasion arise for execution of the judgement.
By and large, the above discussion tackles some of the intricacies of mandatory and discretionary bail in Uganda. It is the province of the judicial officer to set what he or she may deem as “reasonable conditions.” What amounts to “reasonable conditions” depends on the circumstances of each application or case. For instance, in Gilbert Baalibaseka Bukenya vs. Uganda, the anti-corruption court judge, Justice Mugamba deemed a recognizance of 50 million shillings as reasonable due to the gravity of the corruption offences (which led to loss of billions of public funds) that had been preferred against the accused and yet 2 million was unreasonable in the Andrew Mwenda case (supra) because the now outlawed offence of publication of false news that the applicant journalists had been charged with was just a misdemenour. However, it should be noted that the presumption of innocence is not observed for applications of bail pending appeal because a conviction has already been pronounced and the accused’s guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt in the trial proceedings.










BIBLIOGRAPHY
Textbooks
B.J. Odoki; A Guide to Criminal Procedure in Uganda, LDC Publishers, 2nd Ed (1997)
Francis Ayume; Criminal Procedure and Law in Uganda, Longman (1986)
Ssekaana Musa; Criminal Procedure and Practice in Uganda, Law Africa, 2010

Statutes
Constitution of The Republic of Uganda, 1995 (as amended)
The Magistrates Courts Act (Chapter 16 Laws of Uganda)
The Trial on Indictment Act (Chapter 23 Laws of Uganda)
The Penal Code Act (Chapter 120 Laws of Uganda)

Monday, October 24, 2011

Relevance of Opinion evidence in the Law of Evidence

UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, MUKONO
SCHOOL OF LAW

A PAPER SUBMITTED AS WRITTEN COURSEWORK IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT LEADING TO THE AWARD OF A BACHELOR OF LAWS (LLB) DEGREE OF UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, MUKONO


BY SILVER M KAYONDO
SO9B11/316

LECTURER: Mr. JOSEPH EDMOND KALINAKI

TUTOR: Miss ANNITAH TUSIIMIRE

COURSE UNIT: LAW OF EVIDENCE 1

Question: Discuss the relevance of evidence of opinion in the Law of evidence.







Intoduction:
In this paper, I will discuss the principles relating to evidence of opinion. I will also give its relevance and applicability in Uganda and other common wealth jurisdictions and give a critical analysis on the role of expert evidence in the dispensation of justice while discussing the principles pertaining to opinions of experts and lay persons.
Evidence, as used in judicial proceedings has several meanings, but there are two main senses of the word. First, it refers to the means apart from argument in inference from which the court is informed about the issues of facts established by pleadings; and secondly, the subject matter of such means is also referred to as evidence. Law of evidence deals with facts in issue. “Facts in issue” are those facts upon which the existence of right or liability to be ascertained in the proceedings depends. The burden of adducing evidence lies with the prosecution to support its case beyond reasonable doubt. This position is reflected in the Evidence Act which provides that whoever desires to any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he or she asserts must prove that those facts exist . The evidential burden upon the defence consists of raising evidence that will bring reasonable doubt of his guilt in the mind of the judge. He need not disprove absolutely the case of the prosecution and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
In law of evidence, “opinion” means any inference from observed facts, and the law as the subject derives from the general rule that witnesses must speak only to that which was directly observed by them. Such evidence is divisible into that of ordinary witnesses and that of expert witnesses. Ordinary witnesses’ evidence may be admissible to establish handwritings, signatures, existence of customs and usage. Expert evidence on the other hand, includes evidence from medical doctors, psychiatrics, ballistic experts, forensic investigators. Relevant opinions may be sought to establish identity, age, health, intoxication, insanity, sanity, hand writing, attestation, speed and application of words with an unusual or doubtful meaning.
In Uganda’s corpus juris, opinion is evidence is provided for under the Evidence Act which provides that When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in that foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions, are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.
A person may not give his/her opinion on matters that the court considers call for the special skill or knowledge of an expert unless he/she is an expert in such matters, and he/she may not give his/her opinion on other matters if the facts upon which it is based can be stated without reference to it. A witness is therefore allowed to give/express his/her opinion with regard to such matters, provided he/she has expertise in them. For instance, in Uganda vs. Monoko and others , court held that the medical assistant/dental assistant was competent to classify the injuries sustained by the victim as grievous harm as he was specifically trained in dental care. He was therefore able to assess the gravity of the injury sustained.
The treatment of evidence opinion by Ugandan Law is adopted from English Law and is based on the presumption that it is possible for court to draw a sharp distinction between inference, and the facts on which they are based with the use of such evidence. As a general rule, evidence of opinion is excluded, but there are exceptions to this general rule. However, there is a difference between legitimate expression of opinion and its application to a given set of facts. As held by Allen, J in Uganda vs. Sulaiman Indibarema & Anor , the role of court as laid down by Law is to evaluate the opinion evidence with reference to and in context of the totality of evidence and then record its verdict since the court is said to be the expert of all experts.
Opinion evidence is inadmissible because the opinion of a witness will most likely be advantageous to the party who called him to give evidence and opinion evidence in most cases is likely to be influenced by matters of hearsay. However, the Evidence Act nevertheless accepts two categories of opinion evidence as admissible. [Expert evidence and opinions of ordinary witnesses (non-expert evidence)]
Sections 45-49 of the Evidence Act of Uganda deal with opinion evidence of lay persons. For instance, when the court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person is a relevant fact. Section 43 speaks of special skill while section 45 refers to acquaintance. In R vs Silverlock , Court was of the opinion that said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when:
1) He or she has seen that person write;
2) He or she has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or herself or under his or her authority and addressed to that person;
3) In the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him or her.
Section 46 deals with Opinion as to right or custom and provides that;
When the court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any general custom or right, the opinions as to the existence of that custom or right, of persons who would be likely to know of its existence if it existed, are relevant.
Section 47 of the Evidence Act is concerned with Opinion as to usages, tenets. It provides that;
When the court has to form an opinion as to:
a) the usages and tenets of any body of men or family;
b) the constitution and government of any religious or charitable foundation;
c) the meaning of words or terms used in particular districts or by particular classes of people, the opinion of persons having special means of the knowledge thereon are relevant facts.
Section 48 of the Act tackles Opinion as to relationships. It provides that;
When the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of the relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact. However, the proviso to this section forbids the use of such opinion from being sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Divorce Act, or in prosecutions under section 153 of the Penal Code Act on adultery. Proof in those two cases must be evidence of fact and not opinion. However, other relationships like parentage, affiliation, kindred may be proved by opinion evidence. Reasons for opinions must be given.
On the other hand, an “expert” was defined by Law, Ag. J in Gatheru s/o Njagwara vs. R . He said;
“All persons , I think who practice a business or profession which requires them to possess a certain knowledge of the matter in hand are experts so far as experience is required. “The learned judge however went on to add that that such special skill is not confined to knowledge acquired academically but would also include skill acquired by practical experience. This position was later approved by Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in an appeal from Nigeria, Said Ayami vs. Comptroller of Customs where Their Lordships held that the practical knowledge of a person who is not a lawyer might be sufficient in certain cases to qualify him as a competent expert on a question of foreign law. This is the current position of the law in Uganda.
The import of section 43 of the Evidence Act of Uganda makes reference to “special skill”. Such skill can be attained, and one would be regarded as an expert if he has an educational background which enables him to become conversant with the subject matter (art or science) he is expected to testify on. This is very vivid in case Law. For example, in Gatheru’s case, the appellant was convicted in the Supreme Court of Kenya on two counts of being in unlawful possession of a fire arm and of unlawful possession of ammunition and was sentenced to death on each of these two counts. A witness, whose competency as an expert in fire arms was not established gave evidence that the article in question was a “home-made rifle” Justice Law opined that;
“Court has on several occasions said that when a trial court has to form an opinion upon the question whether a home-made gun or part thereof, is a lethal barreled weapon, it must have the assistance of expert opinion that we think that such special skill is not confined to knowledge acquired academically, but would also include skill acquired by practical experience that in the present circumstances, even though a police officer employed on operational or investigation work, acquires a sufficient practical knowledge to qualify him as an expert, his competence as an expert should in all cases, be shown before his testimony is properly admitted. ”
However, such evidence of opinion is regarded as expert, educational background of the witness must first be put on record and each field of expertise will require definite qualifications. For instance, a lawyer may not be permitted to testify on questions relating to medical practice and vice versa, but the expert evidence must be relevant to facts in issue arising out of the court proceedings.
Opinion/expert evidence has been relevant in the following ways;
It has guided courts of Law in establishing some ingredients of alleged offences/crimes. For instance, in Uganda vs. Dr Aggrey Kiyingi And 2 Others , Post mortem examination of the deceased was done by Dr William Male Mutumba, (PW7) a pathologist, who established that the deceased died of multiple gunshot injuries that resulted in severe lacerations of the brain, lungs and the heart. This proved the fact of death of the deceased, the first ingredient in a murder trial. In Uganda vs. Paddy William Pampara , Justice Mkanza accepted the evidence of a medical doctor who classified injuries in the cornea and conjunctivitis as grievous harm because they were injuries to the external organ and under the Penal Code Act, ‘grievous harm’ means any harm which amounts to a maim or dangerous harm, or seriously or permanently injures health, or which extends to permanent disfigurement or to any permanent or serious injury to an external or internal organ, membrane or sense.
Opinion evidence has also been helpful in corroborating some other pieces of evidence thus leading to successful prosecutions where the guilt of the accused is established. For instance, in Uganda vs. Akbar Hussein Godi , Justice Lawrence Gidudu also based his judgement on the evidence of the ballistic expert, Robinah Kirinya who told court that the two cartridges that where found at the scene of crime were fired by Godi’s pistol and the government analyst’s evidence who tested the soil samples from the murder scene and that the soil that was scooped from Godi’s shoes that corresponded with that from the crime scene. These pieces of expert evidence were very crucial for the prosecution in destroying the defence of alibi raised by the accused hence placing him on the scene of crime. No wonder, he was later convicted of murder. Another case in point is Uganda Vs Nkulungira Thomas Alias Tonku & Anor where Justice Atwooki Rugadya took Evidence of corroboration to the fact of death of the deceased from PW9 Dr. Kalungi the Pathologist who performed the post mortem examination. It corroborated pieces of evidence from PW7 Sgt. Grace Auma who was at the scene and witnessed the body of Brenda as it was recovered from a septic tank. It was taken to City mortuary, where the mother Joy Karamuzi PW1 identified it and later took her daughter for burial.
Opinion evidence also aids court in reaching decisions especially in technical areas of practice. For instance, the High Court of Uganda in Walusimbi vs. Standard Bank Ltd , laid down the procedure to be adopted in tendering and accepting documents as evidence and how to submit such documents with genuine writings. Courts address their mind to experts’ opinions in matters like medical and dental practice, forensic interpretations, auditing, engineering and any other technical areas which may arise during proceedings. This guides court to adjudicate from an informed perspective.
Expert evidence also aids defence in establishing weaknesses in prosecution cases. For instance, in Uganda vs. Sulaiman Indibarema and another, defence used the weakness of prosecution in lining up gombolola askaris with very little or no knowledge at all about firearms to testify against the accused on charges of illegal possession of ammunition instead of ballistic experts. On revision, Justice Allen conquered with defence counsel that there was no expert evidence upon which the trial magistrate could base proper and sufficient findings with regard to the alleged ammunition and that he had failed to direct himself correctly upon the lack of proof of various necessary matters and consequently, the conviction could not be allowed to stand for the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. This prevented a miscarriage of justice.
Opinion evidence is also relevant in aiding courts to determine authorship and authenticity of important documents like wills and codicils. In Re: The Estate of Ellen Wilkes, the testatrix made a will in 1985 in which she left her property equally to her five children with a gift of her personal possessions to her only daughter, Maureen. In 1992, she had two strokes which left her wholly dependent on others. She required 24 hours care. She received care from her children until 1993 when local authority funding became available. One of the sons, George continued to visit his dear mother frequently and relieved her care givers when they went on holiday or were off duty. He later on took control of the testarix’s finances which had been previously handled by Maureen and consequently, relations between George and Maureen deteriorated. Maureen visited her mom less frequently and in December 1994, George took his mother to make a new will leaving everything to him. In 1995, the testatrix executed it.
In an action against George, there was a lot of evidence, both general and medical. A consultant physician with specialty in in the care of the elderly gave expert evidence on the medical records of the testatrix even though he had never met her. The consultant cautioned court about the acceptance of at face value of statements, whether by medical practitioners or others which suggested that the deceased was in in her right state of mind at all material times. He concluded that the testatrix was probably incapable of making her will because there was evidence of widespread brain damage in the form of cerebral vascular disease, the testatrix suffered from Parkinson’s diseases which, in forty percent of the cases, is associated with a dementia process and that her auditory impairment and extreme age were likely to impair her mental faculties’ function. Terrence Etherton, QC sitting as the deputy presiding judge alluded to this piece of expert opinion as “measured, objective and very helpful.”
Lastly, evidence of opinion has helped courts ascertain the existence and practice of some alleged customary laws. For example, the East African Court of Appeal in Rex vs Ndembera s/o Mwandawale , Rex vs. Wesonga and Kimani vs. Gikanga approved the use of expert witnesses in customary Law. However, court also noted that great caution must be taken in reception of such evidence. Court must ascertain first whether any proposed expert witness on customary Law really qualifies as an expert before receiving his/her evidence. In Kigozi vs. Lukiiko, the High Court of Uganda was of the opinion that a high ranking customary political officer, a senior saza (county) chief of Buganda could be regarded as competent to deliver such evidence to court. Elders also qualify since their age and experience within society expose them to knowledge about local customary practices and norms.

By and large, opinion evidence is very relevant when court is called upon to resolve technical questions in issue. However, courts have also treaded carefully in some instances. For instance, some courts are most likely to value medical evidence from a doctor who knows the client well and which is contemporaneous. Courts have also in some instances rejected inconclusive pieces of opinion evidence. A case in point is Moses Dirisa & 3 others vs. Sietico (U) Ltd where the Supreme Court of Uganda held that the learned trial judge was correct to have rejected the evidence of the expert doctor who testified for the plaintiffs because he had only made a casual examination. The learned justices of the Supreme Court went ahead to note that a doctor or any expert witness must provide a scientific base for his/her opinion before his/her findings can be accepted by court.









BIBLIOGRAPHY
TEXTBOOKS
A Handbook for Magistrates, LDC Publishers (Revised Ed, 2004) ISBN 9977 811 081
Collin Tapper; Cross& Tapper on Evidence, Oxford University Press 11th Ed (2007) ISBN 978-0-19-929200-4
G D Nokes; An Introduction to Evidence Sweet & Maxwel, 4th Ed
Obol-Ochola; The East African Law of Evidence (1972) Makerere University, Kampala

STATUTES
Constitution of The Republic of Uganda, 1995 (as amended)
The Evidence Act, Cap. 6 Laws of Uganda

Friday, October 21, 2011

The Relationship between Ideology and State under Marxism.

UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, MUKONO
SCHOOL OF LAW
                                                                  
A PAPER SUBMITTED AS WRITTEN COURSEWORK IN COMPLIANCE WITH CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THE EXAMINATION RULES AND GUIDELINES LEADING TO THE AWARD OF A BACHELOR OF LAWS (LLB) DEGREE OF UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, MUKONO.



BY SILVER M KAYONDO
SO9B11/316

LECTURER: Mr. BRIAN KALENGE

TUTOR: Mr. MARK MUGASHA

COURSE UNIT: JURISPRUDENCE II

Question: Discuss the relationship between State and Ideology according to Marxism.






Introduction:
This paper seeks to address and interpret the Marxist concepts of ‘ideology’ and ‘state’ in Jurisprudential studies. Under Marxism,[1] the concept of ideology has three meanings. These are:
(i) System of beliefs characteristic of a group or class.
(ii) A system of illusory beliefs, false ideas, false consciousness as opposed to true or scientific knowledge.
(iii) The general process of production of meanings and ideas.[2]
Marx asserts that ideologies justify or express the interests of the dominant classes. There is ‘false consciousness[3] and adoption by the subordinate classes (proletariats) of the dominant ideology. This is visible in today’s Uganda. The ruling class has come up with ideologies like ‘prosperity for all’ which are intended to hoodwink the peasant class and arouse false consciousness that the ruling power of the day is committed to the well-being and prosperity of the peasants. After elections, such ideological frameworks are shelved and never implemented until the next campaign period.
Marx adds that such false consciousness is the major obstacle to revolution. Until the proletariat develops class consciousness and demystifies the bourgeois ideological framework, there can be no revolution. This is indeed the picture in most countries in sub-Sahara Africa. For instance in Uganda, some argue that there can be no revolution because majority of the population (about 80%) are rural based peasants who have not formed any counter-ideology to demystify that of the National resistance Movement. No wonder, election results show that they are the support base of the ruling class and yet their hospitals, roads, schools and other social amenities are in a deplorable condition.
The above trend of events contrasts with North Africa (Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia) and the rest of the Arab world (like Syria) where literacy levels are higher, and the masses are able to interpret the latest trends of political ideology like democracy, representative Governments, free and fair elections and radically oppose and demystify the ruling class ideology of sharia Law, dynastic monarchies and Islamic conservatism.
Furthermore, all classes share in the system of belief imposed by the dominant class and there are institutions put in place by the ruling class to demystify and disseminate the ideology.[4]Indeed, this is visible in postmodern states like Uganda where there are ‘Leadership Training Schools’ like Kyankwanzi[5] and ‘ingando’, ‘amatoreero’ in Rwanda which disseminate Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) ideologies. Other initiatives in Uganda included chakamchaka which was all about demystifying the gun to enhance the militaristic ideology of the current establishment and dissemination of the NRM ideology of the ten-point programme.
Marx also opines that the dominant class has vast resources considerably greater than those of the subordinate classes, to bring its own weight on civil society and promote its ideology.[6] In Uganda, this was witnessed in 2005 when the ruling establishment was in the process of amending the National Constitution and delete term limits so as to enhance its stay in power.[7] Civil Society campaigns from the Uganda Law society, Anti-Corruption Coalition, and other agencies couldn’t yield much effort since the ruling class had vast resources and bribed Members of Parliament with a paltry Five (5) million shillings each and the sanctity of the Constitution was molested.
In another submission, Karl Marx is of the view that morality is a form of ideology. Indeed, the role of the church and religion (what he termed as the opiate of society) in politics of both pre-colonial and post-colonial Uganda is vivid. Some religious leaders have turned pulpits into ideological apparatuses. They preach to their prelates that respect of ruling authority and submission to their will is not only Godly, but also moral since all authority comes from God! This is done in isolation of the fact that the same God condemns corruption, sectarianism, tribalism, political persecution and other injustices meted out by the ruling class to those who are or may be perceived as being critical to their rule.
Such ideologies of the ruling class are spread through propaganda and the mass media. This is very vivid all over the world. Adolf Hitler used a lot of propaganda to enhance his Nazi ideologies. The impact of mass media in the United States of America presidential campaigns and the propaganda arising therefrom cannot be ignored! In Uganda, the ruling class spreads its ideology through ‘The New Vision’ and ‘Uganda Broadcasting Corporation Television’. Media houses like ‘The Daily Monitor’ and which appear critical of such ideological frameworks are shut down and their equipment confiscated as was the case in 2005 when Monitor was raided by State operatives and shut down. Journalists are not spared either. In Uganda, Andrew Mwenda, Charles Onyango Obbo, Timothy Kalyegira and others have been arrested and charged with cases ranging from criminal libel to publication of false news.[8]
The ‘state’ includes not just the executive and legislative branches of Government, but also the civil service, Local Government, the Judiciary, military and police. The ‘state system’ is an interaction of these institutions of power and authority.[9]Marx took a materialist view of the state and emphasized the gap between the state and civil society.[10] He viewed the state as an instrument of class oppression.[11] Indeed, the state has always been a committee for managing the affairs of the bourgeoisie. For instance, in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, the ousted leaders were wealthier than the entire population. They held a firm grip of the economy and their families and cronies had multi-billion business deals struck with a lot of influence peddling, unfair advantage and in contravention of public bidding and procurement due process. In Uganda, budget supplements for State house and office of the Presidency to finance extravagant lifestyle and donations have been prioritized over the ailing health, education, transport and communication sectors. In France, at the time of the French revolution in 1789, King Louis XVI and Queen Marrie Antoinette were living very expensive lifestyles at the expense of the peasants and lower middle class who were chocking with numerous taxes! The above case studies justify Karl Marx’s observations and I associate myself with his submission.
Marx traced his origin of State to the division of labour and saw the state as in contradiction to the real interests of all members of society. One would be forgiven for thinking the same about Uganda’s ruling class. They seem to be more interested in acquiring the latest fighter jets to enhance their stay in power as opposed to tackling inflation, and other major economic reforms. As McLellan termed it, it is more of an illusory community serving as a screen for the real struggles waged by classes against each other[12]. As the common grass root peasant in Uganda is crying about the rise of commodity products like sugar, paraffin and salt, the ruling class is demanding for more supplementary budgets to spend on foreign trips and donations!
Another concern from Marx is the existence of a political organ at each stage of production which corresponded with that stage and supported the interest of the dominant class. The state also acts as an intermediary in the formation of all of all communal institutions and gives them a political form.[13]In Uganda today, the ruling class has put up such models. There are Local Councils at village, parish, and sub-county and district level. Some of their work overlaps and conflicts with that of Chief Administrative Officers, Resident District Commissioners and special presidential cadres. Such arrangements can also be traced in Kenya, Tanzania and many more African States. Some of the models are inherited from former colonial powers that had put them in place to subjugate and maximumly exploit Africa of her resources!
One fundamental observation of a Marxist State is the submission that sometimes, the state may not be representative of the whole of a ruling class, but only a section of that class. In Libya, Ghadaffi had appointed his sons notably Saif al Islam to run some of the State work. In Uganda, some argue that the current establishment is a dynastic politico-military clique of relatives, friends and in-laws from a certain part of the country and from one party which has been merged to the State.[14]
Colline Summer[15]notes that the law is an ideological form that is complex but not equally legalistic. It is a reflection of class inequality and expresses the ideologies of the dominant class. In Uganda today and across Africa, the Law concerning how the State should be run seems to be more of what the sovereign/ruling class wants. For instance, the proposed Law on Bail in Uganda, the Public Order and Management Bill, the Press Control Bill are all intended to gag those who may have dissenting opinions on how the State should be run and those who intend to show counter-ideologies to the same effect.
This school of thought also postulates that there is such an intense competition in challenging the political/regime hegemony that the state may assume authoritarian forms and free itself from constitutional checks and balances. This is the norm in developing democracies. For instance, in Zimbabwe, the media is vigorously cracked down and the constitutional right to freedom of expression and the media was usurped by the ruling regime.[16] In Uganda, the proposed bail amendment law targets political opponents in pressure groups like Activists for Change and intends to free the state from Constitutional constraints imposed under the civil rights of liberty and peaceful protest.
The Marxist State is also a source of status. Those holding powerful offices and positions express themselves in terms of ‘national interest’ and those seeking power also do so in the name of ‘public interest’. In Uganda Kenya, Zimbabwe, there is a thin line between the opposition and the ruling class in hiding under the cover of ‘national interest’. For instance, during the walk to work campaigns that marred Uganda in April, the opposition leaders argued that they were holding the same in public interest against soaring commodity prices and the state responded with brutal crackdown  in ‘national interest’ to maintain public peace, security and order. To Marx, the state is but a temporary phenomenon.[17]Revolution was inevitable and this would break the power of the state. Proletariat rule is linked to attainment of universal suffrage and win the battle of democracy.[18] In line with this observation, the Museveni-led Luwero bush war was about universal suffrage, restoration of democracy and free and fair elections.[19]The Arab spring protests and revolutions are a product of the same ideologies.
However, I disagree with Marx’s categorization of state function in terms of social class conflict. This is simplistic in approach and fails to treat the state as an autonomous structure with its own interests separate from those of the dominant class. States like Sweden have been built to be independent and more so, in today’s diverse society, there are other stratifications like race, an emerging new world order visible from trade blocs and regional integrations and the primitive society model even in Africa is being phased out by an upcoming elite young middle class.
In a nutshell, the Marxist State (composed of the ruling class) imposes its ideology on the subdued inferior classes and puts in place State apparatuses, most of which are oppressive, exploitative, coercive and repressive to achieve their own ends. It’s also immaterial whether such ideology is true or false, correct or incorrect or reasonable or unreasonable. What matters most is that it (the ideology) should be the dominant will of the ruling class.  Marx envisioned a period of revolutionary transformation as a result of a severe economic crisis. He seems to be of the view that the most ‘advanced’ industrial states should experience revolution first. Indeed, class struggles are being manifested in these states. For instance, some have argued that the August riots in London and the current ‘Occupy Wall Street’ campaign in the United States of America are class struggles between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ seeking answers to the current economic meltdown.  With the Arab spring uprisings acting as catalysts, only time will tell whether such revolutions against State and Ideology will spill in peasant-dominated Sub-Sahara Africa.





















[1] Marxism was pioneered in the early to mid-19th Century by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Hengels (1820-1895). It is an economic, social and political worldview that is built on a materialistic view of history, a dialectic interpretation of social phenomena and critiques the development of Capitalism.
[2] See R. Williams; Marxism and Literature, 1977 and Lloyds Introduction to Jurisprudence, 8the Ed pg. 1140-1141
[3] Coined by Hegels
[4] Althuser; Ideology and ideological State Apparatuses in Lenin and Philosophy (1972) 1 Balbus (1977) Law and society Review, 571
[5] ‘The Spiritual home of the NRM’ and instructors like Kajabago Ka Rusoke who preach the NRM ideology.
[6] Lloyds, pg 1143
[7] Their ideology seemed to be that they did not come to power through ballot and Constitutional enactments, but rather by the barrel of the gun. President Museveni was later to affirm this by saying that he chased his animal and caught it, but other people want him to leave. He wondered how and where he should go!
[8] Publication of false news was outlawed in Andrew Mujuni Mwenda vs The Attorney General where section 50 of the Penal Code Act was rendered unconstitutional in a free and democratic society where freedom of expression ought to be upheld.
[9] Milliband, a student of Marx in ‘The State in Capitalist Society’ (1969) Chapter 3
[10] Lloyds, pg 1145
[11] See, The Communist Manifesto; Penguin ed: 1975 pg. 82
[12] McLellan; The Thought of Karl Marx (1971) pg 182
[13] Karl Marx; Grundrisse pg.48
[14] Olive Kobusingye; The Correct Line? Uganda Under Museveni
[15] In ‘Reading Ideologies: An Investigation into Marxist Theory of Ideology and Law’ cited in Omony John Paul: Key Issues in Jurisprudence, 1st Ed Law Africa
[16] Refer to the Mark Gova Chavunduka case
[17] Lloyds pg. 1153
[18] Communist Manifesto, pg 102
[19] See Regime Hegemony in Museveni’s Uganda, Y K Museveni; Sowing the Mustard Seed, Macmillan

Friday, April 15, 2011

The Walk-to-work protest: From a poet’s perspective.

By: Silver M Kayondo
Very early in the morning, they set off to work on foot
Their 4 wheel drive air-conditioned vehicles left parked
For a noble cause; in protest of high fuel prices
Peacefully, courageously and calmly –they set off.

Tip, tap, tip tap, tip tap destined for their respective places of work
To struggle and make ends meet,
Provide daily bread for their families, share with loved ones; and
Identify with the common Ugandan who can’t afford his transport fair anymore
Who works so hard; day in-day out, Week in-week out, Month in-month out
But all he receives at the end is peanuts.

The Government takes the lion share of the peanuts in taxes and social security fund
The biggest whale in the sea takes his portion
To finance elections, purchase more military artillery
To consolidate its position as the biggest whale in the sea

Hardly had they reached their places of work when the police appeared
‘‘Stop. I have said stop. Where are you going? Today, walking is illegal.’’ The police commander shouted on top of his voice.
‘‘We are going to work.’’ They humbly and innocently answered.
Some of them dignitaries-very high profile people in the country
Members of Parliament, distinguished members of the noble learned profession, senior politicians
Their chief; a seasoned medical doctor and other respected professionals.

‘‘Why are you walking?’’ the police interrogated
One of them replied innocently, ‘‘we can’t afford the fuel. Prices are very high.’’
‘‘You are under arrest.’’ The senior police officer barked
The junior officers, with the index fingers tight on the triggers of AK 47 assault riffles
Ready to pull, spit venom and spill blood, came closer and ring fenced their catch

Brutally, in the most inhumane manner they mugged their catch
Bundled him on their police patrol pick up vehicle purchased with part of the catches’ taxes
Off they drove him to the police station
In the coolers of solitary confinement he was locked up

‘‘This is unconstitutional!’’ his respected learned advocate lamented
‘‘He is exercising his constitutional right. He was peaceful, unarmed and did not interfere with anybody.’’ He pleaded
On deaf ears the pleas fell

He was arraigned before court-a holy sanctuary. A temple of justice
And charges of inciting violence preferred against him
He vehemently denied the accusation by the state and was granted bail
He at last had partial freedom and was ready to go back home
Amidst sighs of relief and thunderous chants by his followers.

‘‘ Give us, us free. Give us, us free. Give us, us free. Give us, us free. Give us, us free.’’ Joseph Cinque (1813-1879), a West African who led a slave mutiny on the Cuban Amistad ship in 1839. It led to a celebrated trial in United States courts, which held that slaves escaping from illegal bondage should be treated as free men.
 
The writer is a Law student at Uganda Christian University, Mukono
 
© This is copyrighted material. Any violation will be pursued vigorously to the fullest extent of the Law at the violator’s detriment and embarrassment. Prior, express permission from the author must be sought before any use. For academic purposes, correct citation and acknowledgment must be indicated.








Monday, March 21, 2011

REASONS TO OPPOSE THE ATTACK ON LIBYA

REASONS TO OPPOSE THE ATTACK ON LIBYA
By: Silver Kayondo


– Humanitarianism is a pretext for action which actually seeks to establish a new Libyan government which shares western neoliberal economic ideology

– The attack on Libya is a military operation in support of the army of the Interim National Council in its civil war with the Libyan government

– The attack on Libya is motivated by Libya's resource wealth and the opportunities for
western corporations

– The attack on Libya is hypocritical in light of western support for other dictatorships and western state's own history of attacking civilian populations

– There been no concern expressed by western governments regarding the racist violence of the rebels towards the large black african population in Libya. Blacks are fleeing Libya in terror, in fear of attacks from rebels. As of 17th March, the International Organisation for Migration reports that 300,000 migrants have fled Libya with 13,000 stuck at the border.


The attack on Libya has been conducted under the pretext of humanitarian intervention to protect civilian populations but it is actually an intervention in a civil war in support of the rebel army. The Benghazi-based rebel Interim National Council is committed to a neoliberal agenda of economic reform, privatisation and opportunities for Western corporations.

UN resolution 1973 makes no mention of the rebel council but the use of the resolution to impose a onesided ceasefire is clearly supportive of the rebels. The rebels had no reason to abide by a ceasefire. The destruction of the Libyan government's military equipment, including ground vehicles, is also clearly of assistance to the rebels. Whilst the resolution forbids the use of an “occupying force” is does not prohibit the
use of ground troops, it is possible that ground troops, particularly special forces may be used to fight alongside a rebel army.

The UN resolution allows “all necessary measures”. Implementation of the resolution and decisions as to what is necessary is left in the hands of those carrying out military action. The resolution does not call for regime change but allows supporters of the resolution to pursue such an aim. Following the passing of the resolution, all the key supporters of the resolution spoke of the need for Gaddafi to go.

The bombardment of Libya is in stark contrast to the treatment of many other regimes, in the Middle East and elsewhere, who have attacked civilians in recent years. Considering the history of western powers in the region it is hard not to see motivations of economic self-interest and greed behind the veil of humanitarian concern. When humanitarian concern is so selectively directed it seems blatant hypocrisy.

Where was the enforced no-fly zone during Israel's brutal Operation Cast Lead? Where was the west's humanitatarian concern for civilians being bombarded from the air in Gaza in 2008-09, when hundreds of noncombatants were being killed by Israeli warplanes in furtherance of an illegal occupation?

Where is the enforced no-fly zone in Pakistan, where missile attacks from US drones have killed many hundreds of civilians?

Where is the humanitarian concern for civilians in Bahrain, where the dictatorial regime is allowed to violently repress the local uprising without condemnation and with the military aid of Saudi Arabia, another western armed dictatorship?

Humanitarian concern is a selective policy that is subordinate to issues of economic and strategic self-interest. The west has a long history of supporting dictators when it is in their interests to do so and then switching allegiance when they see a successor who they can better do business with. The Interim National Council is the successor to Gaddafi who the west can do business with.

This not about democracy or revolution. We will not hear the western leaders calling for democracy or revolution in other Arab states. The military coalition against the Libyan government includes the antidemocratic dictatorships of United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

This is about oil. The west fears a long drawn out conflict with Libya. They have no desire to impose an embargo on Libyan oil. An embargo would keep oil prices at a high level at a time when, particularly given the state of the global economy, this would have major adverse consequences.


THE WEST & THE INTERIM NATIONAL COUNCIL - PLOTTING BEFORE THE ATTACK...

4th March - The Independent newspaper reported that the UK were to send experts to give military advice to the opposition forces in Libya.1

5th March - The Interim National Council (INC) announced its official establishment in the city of Benghazi and declared itself “the only legitimate body representing the people of Libya and the Libyan state”.2

6th March - The international development minister Alan Duncan, a former oil trader, warned the price of crude oil could double due to the unrest in the Middle East. He said, "I've been saying in government for two months that if this does go wrong, £1.30 at the pump could look like a luxury. 200 dollars is on the cards if... anyone is reckless and foments unrest. It could be very serious. If crude oil doubles, you're going to have a serious spike (in petrol prices). Try living without it for a week."3

7th March - The Independent newspaper reported that Obama had requested Saudi Arabia to supply the rebel army with weapons.4 On the same day it was revealed that SAS soldiers and MI6 agents had been in Benghazi with the rebels. This came to light when the soldiers and secret agents flew from Benghazi to meet up with a MI6 field officer at a nearby farm. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said, “I can confirm that a small British diplomatic team has been in Benghazi. The team went to Libya to initiate contacts with the opposition”.5 A source from UK special forces told the Telegraph newspaper that the MI6 agents were carrying a personal letter from David Cameron to the rebels.6

10th March - France formally recognised the INC and said it would shortly be sending an embassy to Benghazi.7 Sarkozy's office said that France is keen to help the INC "politically”.8 The same day, a UK Foreign Office spokesman told Reuters “The interim council are valid interlocutors, with whom we wish to work closely. We've made it clear that Gaddafi must go now. We are working closely with international partners to achieve this.”9

Both Hillary Clinton, William Hague and other western government representatives also met and spoke with Mahmoud Jibril and other representatives from the INC in the days leading up to the attack on Libya.10 What was the purpose of the numerous meetings? Was it to plot a military attack with the aim of creating a new client state and protecting and expanding western economic interests in Libya?


WHO ARE THE INTERIM NATIONAL COUNCIL?

The INC consists of former government officials and members of the Libyan establishment who are colluding with the US, UK and France to achieve power. Members of the interim council include:
- Abdul Jalil, former justice minister
- Abdul Hafez Ghoga, former president of the Libyan Bar
- Ali Issawi, former ambassador to India and also former minister of economy, trade & investment
- General Abdul Fattah Younis Obaidi, the former interior minister
- Mahmoud Jibril, former chairman of the National Economic Development Board

Mahmoud Jibril has been acting as the INC's special envoy and has been negotiating with western leaders. A leaked US diplomatic cable dating from November 2009 reveals the American embassy view of Mahmoud Jibril as "a serious interlocutor who 'gets' the US perspective".

"He is also not shy about sharing his views of US foreign policy, for example, opining that the US spoiled a golden opportunity to capitalise on its 'soft power' (McDonald's, etc) after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 by putting 'boots on the ground' in the Middle East. As for opportunities for U.S. companies, Jibril said Libya was "opening widely and very fast" and that the world economic crisis had not hit Libya. He characterized the economy as being "in a liquid phase, and not yet solidified," with many opportunities for foreign companies willing to take the risk to come here. He recommended U.S. firms focus on strategic projects, i.e., ones that touch people's lives, such as education and healthcare. Libya would also need help managing facilities, such as airports. He contrasted Libya to the Gulf area, which he thought would remain unstable for the next ten years due to tensions with Iran. Libya, on the other hand, has a stable regime and is "virgin country" for investors.”11

The writer is a Law student at Uganda Christian University, a researcher, a social and political commentator influenced by Pan-Africanist thinking.

______________________
1 THE GUARDIAN, 4th March 2011,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/04/libyan-opposition-leaders-advice

2 NATIONAL INTERIM COUNCIL, 5th March 2011,  http://ntclibya.org/english/about/

3 LONDON EVENING STANDARD, 4th March 2011,  http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23929117-petrol-prices-may-hit-pound-2-at-pumps.do

4 THE INDEPENDENT – America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels, March 7th 2011,  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyasrebels-2234227.html

5 THE GUARDIAN, 8th March 2011,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/07/sas-mi6-released-libya-rebels

6 THE TELGRAPH, 8th March 2011,  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8367824/Libya-MI6-officer-seized-in-SAS-mission-fiasco-wascarrying-letter-signed-by-David-Cameron.html

7 BBC NEWS – Q&A: Libyan National Council,  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12699785

8 THE GUARDIAN , 10th March 2011,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/10/libya-uprising-gaddafi-live

9 THE GUARDIAN, 10th March 2011,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/10/libya-uprising-gaddafi-live

10 BBC NEWS, 15th March 2011,  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12741414

11 THE TELEGRAPH, 31st January 2011,  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294558/HEAD-OF-LIBYAN-THINK-TANK-OUTLINES-HUMANDEVELOPMENT-STRATEGY.html